Cambridgeshire Police has emerged as the latest force that prefers not to explain itself to the public – and then not to explain why it won’t explain itself.
Back in December 2008, following the Internet Watch Foundation’s (IWF) controversial decision to block images of the Scorpions album cover on Wikipedia, a member of the …

COMMENTS

Can we assume.......

they are guilty of something because they remain silent when questioned, the police that is ?.

As one Officer advised on his blog, if interviewed or spoken to by Police the very best response one can make is to not say anything at all, not even mundane banter. They obviously do the same themselves.

What??

This should PROMOTE the full publication of force statistics to make Mr Plod more accountable and to show the taxpayers how well their moeny is being spent. If such figures prompt criminals to move to areas which are badly policed then more Plod can be sent there and possibly, just possibly raise the standard and quality of policing and bringing more consistency among forces.

The Secret Police's Ball

Another possibility

You are assuming intelligence behind their responses. They could, quite simply, be incompetent or lazy. Or underestimate the public in thinking that if they initially block requests people will give up.

Allo allo allo, what's all this then?

There is no reason not to have full police accountability and transparency.

"...if criminals are able to determine which authorities are less efficient at responding to certain types of crime, they might move their activities to those police areas."

How about this crazy idea: if a certain police force is not very good at handling a certain type of crime, they try harder to do their own jobs properly, rahter than hiding the facts and hoping that nobody will find out about their incompetence.

@AC (Can we assume......)

"As one Officer advised on his blog, if interviewed or spoken to by Police the very best response one can make is to not say anything at all, not even mundane banter. They obviously do the same themselves."

@The Original Ash (if these links aren't too naughty)

Oh and the total surveillance state is pretty much specced up. Automatic monitoring of all communications with language procesing, entity tracking, etc. Everyone. All of us. All the time. MSN, email, blogs, youtube comments, phone calls, Reg commentardery. It would be lovely if this sort of thing were turned against the police, to flush out the facist/bent/violent. Or the public given access in realtime to the data regarding our servants in office. Just to check their video rentals and contacts with party donors.

Oversight, the lack thereof

"The principle appears to be based on a fear that if criminals are able to determine which authorities are less efficient at responding to certain types of crime, they might move their activities to those police areas."

should read

"The principle appears to be based on a fear that if the general public are able to determine which authorities are less efficient at responding to certain types of crime, they might write to their MP, requesting that the relevant chief constables get a bollocking or get replaced."

@The Original Ash

Nobody knows what is an illegal photograph

Neitehr the IWF nore the police, nor the CPS, indeed not anyone is able to judge what is illegal. The law is inherently vague beyond belief. It largely depends on the prejudices of the dominant personalities on a jury. NB it is not child pornography that is illega. The law is much, much wider than that.

A few days ago I was reading statements from the IWF and the major child protection charities that attempted to define illegal photographs. I then read an appeal court judgement which said the opposite. This law is a mess which is not surpising. It was passed in hurry in a climate of mass hysteria whipped up by Mary Whitehouse. Fortunately her organisation is well on the way to extinction with only a tiny memberhsip. Unfortuanately the media don't seem to have realised that yet and continues to give them publicity.